Isaiah 23,15-18 has often been regarded as part of a Josianic redaction, aligning
the temporal parameters of Isaiah’s oracle against Tyre with Josiah’s reign.
Previous investigations into this passage, however, have relied on matters of strict
chronology to establish this Josianic connection. The Josianic character of the
passage is more readily evident through its invocation of an important cuneiform
document from the reign of Esarhaddon, corresponding with other Josianicera
literary works strongly influenced by Assyrian rhetoric. Tyre’s “70 Years”
deploys language once reserved for the Mesopotamian deity Marduk, contributing
to the way in which a Judean audience in the 7th century should conceive of their
own deity YHWH.

416 Mark Leuchter
Esarhaddonâ€™s vassal treaties and the very nature of Israelâ€™s relationship to
their deity is fashioned upon the Assyrian vassal-suzerain model (21). The
sudden appearance of the 70-year oracle concerning Tyre in Isa 23,15-18
would therefore find a ready antecedent in the literature that circulated during
Esarhaddonâ€™s reign, and likely draws directly from the terminology of Black
Stone inscription, a text that would have been well known to Josianic
audiences emerging from Assyriaâ€™s shadow in the last quarter of the 7th
century (22).
We may conclude, then, that Isa 23,15-18 derives from the Josianic
period, but it should not be understood as a strictly chronological reference to
the time separating Sennacheribâ€™s campaign from the early period of Josiahâ€™s
reign. Rather, the adoption of the 70-year motif in the divine chastisement of
Tyre is a rhetorical device that conveys to its audience a form of divine
discourse that would have demanded attention and commanded authority: it
is YHWH, not a Mesopotamian deity, who stands behind the fate of nations and
city-state such as Tyre. As such, YHWHâ€™s chosen king, Josiah, is the herald of
the deityâ€™s will. Assurbanipalâ€™s death in 627 provided an opportunity for
Josiah to assert Judean political and cultural independence and envision
dominance over other regions. Yet however weakened it may have been,
Assyria did not die with Assurbanipal. Josiahâ€™s audience stood at a crossroads
and was faced with a life or death decision â€” to return to their authentic
traditions or to remain submissive to the specter of Assyria. The interpolation
of Esarhaddonâ€™s terminology into texts rooted in Israelite tradition would,
hopefully, help the nation to indeed choose life (Deut 30,15-20) and avoid
incurring the wrath of YHWH and divine judgment (23). In time, the force of this
rhetoric would dominate national thought to the exclusion of competing
ideologies (24). In that sense, Josiah and his scribes were successful. For Josiah
himself, unfortunately, Armageddon would come only too soon.
Hebrew College Mark LEUCHTER
160 Herrick Rd.
Newton, MA 02459, USA
(21) WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 115-138. See also D.M.
CARR, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford 2005)
140.
(22) LEUCHTER, â€œJeremiahâ€™s 70 Year Prophecyâ€, 514-516.
(23) On the influence of Assyrian rhetorical forms on this passage, see T.A. LENCHAK,
Choose Life! A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28:69-30:20 (AnBib;
Rome 1993) 23-24.
(24) See B. HALPERN, â€œBrisker Pipes Than Poetry: The Development of Israelite
Monotheismâ€, Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. NEUSNER ET AL.) (Philadelphia
1987) 98-102.